In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

At 8/19/2016 6:03:25 PM, BackCommander wrote:In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

I am rather new at this and I would like to restart some of my religious debates with the explicit requirement of RFD. I did not, and the debate became convoluted. I bailed because I could see where it was headed. Am I correct that RFD addresses this sufficiently?

When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.

RFD doesn't always fix this issue. All you have to do in your RFD is repeat both arguments and give your opinion on which participant you think "won" each round. You could, in theory, explain that both Con and Pro made good points then just vote for one or the other because you prefer that one. Vote moderators won't remove a vote that is inconsistent with an RFD, so RFD is only useful to stop people from making "just because I feel like it" votes.

At 8/19/2016 6:03:25 PM, BackCommander wrote:In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

You need god or...

You must believe in an infinite, never ending cycle that never began. Once you realize what we are actually made of? You realize....

This is binary self error correcting code from?

Somewhere............else....

Prove me wrong without being a negative pansy chimp.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

I don't think it's possible to completely eradicate bias when it comes to deciding who sounds more convincing. Isn't going to stop people from being pretentious, though.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

You must believe in an infinite, never ending cycle that never began. Once you realize what we are actually made of? You realize....

This is binary self error correcting code from?

Somewhere............else....

Prove me wrong without being a negative pansy chimp.

What we are actually made of? Energy? The same thing as everything else. How can anyone prove you wrong when you've made no claim?

You're assuming what I must and must not believe, you are wrong. What I believe is inconsequential when it comes to the point I'm making. I make sure not to let my own bias work into my voting on this site, or I refrain from voting. My point is that on religious debates people have a hard time putting aside their own beliefs, or lack thereof, to make a fair decision.

At 8/19/2016 6:03:25 PM, BackCommander wrote:In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

Exactly... The one (completed) debate I have had was a learning experience to say the least. For starters (being overseas), voters in my country were refused a vote (DDO failed to address my complaint) and the only voter was ten times more extreme than my opponent (that's saying a lot since I was debating Bronto). It does seem a bit odd that a fiercely competed debate comes down to a popularity contest.

At 8/20/2016 3:49:47 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:I don't think it's possible to completely eradicate bias when it comes to deciding who sounds more convincing. Isn't going to stop people from being pretentious, though.

By pretentious do you mean calling themself "SpiritandTruth"? And then telling lies.

At 8/19/2016 6:03:25 PM, BackCommander wrote:In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

Response: Facts are based on evidence. Not votes. So don't worry about votes if you know you presented your argument with logic and facts, especially since voting is bias. I debated homosexuality, where my opponent himself admitted I was right during the debate and forfeited. Yet people still voted I lost.

So stop worrying about votes. I don't. Rather, the fact that I converted someone's beliefs in an online debate, especially on such a heated and controversial topic such as homosexuality, is all the satisfaction I needed to know that I won all my debates regardless of what votes say. That's because I rely on facts and evidence. Not votes.

You must believe in an infinite, never ending cycle that never began. Once you realize what we are actually made of? You realize....

This is binary self error correcting code from?

Somewhere............else....

Prove me wrong without being a negative pansy chimp.

What we are actually made of? Energy? The same thing as everything else. How can anyone prove you wrong when you've made no claim?

You're assuming what I must and must not believe, you are wrong. What I believe is inconsequential when it comes to the point I'm making. I make sure not to let my own bias work into my voting on this site, or I refrain from voting. My point is that on religious debates people have a hard time putting aside their own beliefs, or lack thereof, to make a fair decision. : :

If a person believes black is white and white is black, it's impossible to prove to that person what stupid means.

If a person believes black is black and white is white, then you have a chance to teach that person how they perceive those colors out of nothing but invisible waves. If they don't believe that colors come from invisible waves and they're not willing to listen to the deeper knowledge that someone else might have to help them understand that fact, then there's no use in debating that person.

At 8/19/2016 6:03:25 PM, BackCommander wrote:In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

Response: Facts are based on evidence. Not votes. So don't worry about votes if you know you presented your argument with logic and facts, especially since voting is bias. I debated homosexuality, where my opponent himself admitted I was right during the debate and forfeited. Yet people still voted I lost.

So stop worrying about votes. I don't. Rather, the fact that I converted someone's beliefs in an online debate, especially on such a heated and controversial topic such as homosexuality, is all the satisfaction I needed to know that I won all my debates regardless of what votes say. That's because I rely on facts and evidence. Not votes.

So the FACT that it lost 5 out of its 6 debates, and drew the other one is not evidence.Incidentally, in the debate Fati mentions, nowhere did the opponent admit Fati was right. All he did was to politely compliment Fati on the strength of his arguments.

At 8/19/2016 6:03:25 PM, BackCommander wrote:In order to vote on a debate in a fair way we must come to the debate in a neutral state. We can't allow our personal opinions to influence our vote, correct? Glad we agree.

From a stance of not believing, nor disbelieving, in any given god it is much harder to convince FOR rather than AGAINST. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the existence of a god. Now imagine someone walking up and telling you that morality can't exist unless God does. That's a very weak argument, as far as you can tell, morality has always been and has needed no explanation up to this point. Now imagine the same situation, but with someone walking up and telling you that there isn't a being in the sky (or an alternate dimension, whatever) controlling everything you do. You'd be inclined to agree with them seeing as how disbelief doesn't require evidence.

I see too many people on this site who allow their beliefs to influence their vote by not taking a neutral stance. I'm just kind of just rambling on here because there's no where else on this site to voice my opinion on this matter.

Response: Facts are based on evidence. Not votes. So don't worry about votes if you know you presented your argument with logic and facts, especially since voting is bias. I debated homosexuality, where my opponent himself admitted I was right during the debate and forfeited.

You are lying, your opponent stated quite emphatically that your argument was weak, he NEVER said you were right.

Yet people still voted I lost.

That is because your argument was easily refuted.

So stop worrying about votes. I don't. Rather, the fact that I converted someone's beliefs in an online debate, especially on such a heated and controversial topic such as homosexuality, is all the satisfaction I needed to know that I won all my debates regardless of what votes say. That's because I rely on facts and evidence. Not votes.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

You are lying, your opponent stated quite emphatically that your argument was weak, he NEVER said you were right.

Yet people still voted I lost.

That is because your argument was easily refuted.

So stop worrying about votes. I don't. Rather, the fact that I converted someone's beliefs in an online debate, especially on such a heated and controversial topic such as homosexuality, is all the satisfaction I needed to know that I won all my debates regardless of what votes say. That's because I rely on facts and evidence. Not votes.

You are lying, your opponent stated quite emphatically that your argument was weak, he NEVER said you were right.

Yet people still voted I lost.

That is because your argument was easily refuted.

So stop worrying about votes. I don't. Rather, the fact that I converted someone's beliefs in an online debate, especially on such a heated and controversial topic such as homosexuality, is all the satisfaction I needed to know that I won all my debates regardless of what votes say. That's because I rely on facts and evidence. Not votes.

Response: Your weak rebuttals show otherwise.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth